Maldives Generational Smoking Ban: A Public Health Experiment That May Backfire

Core Insights
The radical policy implemented by Maldives, which combines the world’s first “tobacco generation ban” with a comprehensive ban on electronic cigarettes, is essentially a dangerous experiment in the field of public health. This move not only violates the scientific principles of risk reduction but will also give rise to underground black markets, exacerbate health inequality, and ultimately increase the burden of smoking-related diseases, sounding the alarm for similar global ban policies.

Driving Factors
Three forces jointly drove the failure of this policy:

1. Scientific cognitive gap: Policymakers deliberately ignore the core conclusion of institutions such as the UK Department of Health that “e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than smoking,” as well as research from authoritative journals like The BMJ on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in assisting smoking cessation.
2. Misplaced regulatory logic: The “complete ban” strategy conflating high-risk tobacco with low-risk nicotine products violates the principle of product risk classification management and eliminates harm reduction pathways for smokers.
3. Ignoring historical lessons: The policy replicates failed regulatory models, disregarding Australia’s e-cigarette restrictions (which fueled black markets) and India’s ineffective comprehensive ban.

Key Evidence

• Harm reduction failure: The government excluded critical data from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities confirming “e-cigarettes are only 5% as harmful as traditional cigarettes.”
• Black market expansion: A 2025 Electronic Cigarette Post investigation revealed Australia’s restrictions caused a 43% rise in illegal market activity, with AUD $1.2 billion in prohibited items seized.
• Successful alternatives: Sweden reduced smoking rates to <5% using oral snus (SNUs), while Japan halved cigarette sales in a decade via heated tobacco adoption.
• Regulatory paradox: The ban targets both traditional tobacco and e-cigarettes for citizens born after 2007, yet permits more dangerous substances like alcohol to circulate freely.

Strategic Insights
This policy may become a cautionary tale in public health history. When regulators prioritize moralism over science and prohibition over guidance:

1. Black markets emerge as “shadow solutions” to fill demand vacuums.
2. Enforcement resources are squandered policing low-risk nicotine users instead of controlling truly dangerous substances.
3. A lose-lose-lose outcome ensues: smoking rates stagnate, new drugs infiltrate communities, and government credibility erodes.

The Maldives’ dilemma exposes a fundamental truth: risk-graded management—not binary prohibition—is the cornerstone of effective public health governance. Regulatory frameworks equating e-cigarettes with combustible tobacco will ultimately be judged by history as life-threatening failures of duty.